not often>>ronaldreagan. "socialsecurity has nothing to do with the deficit. social security is totally funded by the payroll taxes levied on employer and employee. if you reduce the social security, that money would not go into the general fund to reduce the deficit." ronald reagan. >> texas congressmember and former republican presidential candidate ron paul has given his farewell speech to the house of representatives. and more than 45 minute address wednesday, he assessed his own legacy, blasted u.s. policy at home and abroad and posed a series of questions. >> why cannot people understand that were always destroys wealth and the ready? why is there so little concern for the executive order that gives the president authority to establish a kill list, including american citizens, of those targeted for assassination. why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and the politicians to run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of liberty and support for the people. real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it is wrong. >> congressmember ron

live where the taxes pay for those schools.asronaldreagansaidpeople can vote with their feet. >> jon: ultimate the federal government-- poor people, obviously their suz, the soles are not as quick, have trouble trouble with mobility in some sparse. you're saying the federal government should not be involved in education at all. >> no, the federal government should not be involved in education. >> jon: at all. >> or the constitution should be amended to reflect the consensus that it should. but when the federal government exceeds the constitution and it's the supreme law of the land, how can we trust the federal government to do anything? the federal government might even spy on the country tea chief spy because they think he's having an affair, even though that's against the law they've sworn to uphold. >> jon: if your argument is we can't trust the federal government to do anything how can we trust it to do anything, like fight wars or what it says in constitution to do. >> the constitution was created to give us checks and balances. the states were a check on the federal

was no more responsible for what happened in benghazi than george bush was for september 11 orthatronaldreaganwas with the blowing up of the u.s. marine in beirut. >> shep: this just one of several hearings that were underway today. each focused on what went wrong in benghazi. katherine herrage live. it's my understanding that within the hour, we've learned some members of congress viewed a video of that attack happening in benghazi. >> the intelligence community put together a half hour video, composite from multiple video sources that shows the minutes before the attack, the militants overrunning the consulate, and the second wave of mortars that struck the c.i.a. annex. >> i mean, it's just so obvious to be so obvious to any inexperienced individual that this was purely a terrorist attack. >> fox news has told the c.i.a. is launching a preliminary investigation into the former director's conduct. the issue is whether any c.i.a. resources were used to facilitate the alleged affair between petraeus and his biographer, paula broadwell. the f.b.i. is already concluded that the former di

should be granted a dozen to 14 years for raising my family. >> you talked about the diversity.>>ronaldreagansaid, i will not hold your youth and inexperience against you. >> i will pass that onto luke. >> you are talking about the diversity about the democratic caucus in which you lead in the house. it is a new thing at least that there is not a straight, white male majority in this caucus. and i wonder, you know, the republican party, won a larger majority of the white vote which they were bragging about today in terms of what went right for them in this election which they lost. they lost all minority groups by large margins. when you look at your group and you have that momentous change, what do you say to people who look at that change and think i'm not sure i'm happy about the fact that there is a -- in the democratic caucus? >> i haven't met anybody like that yet. >> but let's say i would say everybody is talking about how we can appeal to these people to vote for us and we are saying no, we want to go beyond that. we want them to represent us. so it is not about we need your v

's daughter, understood conservatismorronaldreagan, thealcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new

you a positionandronaldreagan negotiated this way beautifulliy multiple times. boehner has to say this guy is crazy he will take us over the cliff and we have the worst possible case, we have to cut that deal. the deal at best is going to get half the republicans and a little more than haf the democrats. the president has to make sure he keeps his democrats in the tent because they are not going to be happy with some of the elements of change and we have seen a coalition of labor and liberals saying no way. >> so, in the nitty-gritty before we get to entitlements. what if -- would it be better if we increase taxes on a larger group of people everybody making over 250,000 by a smaller amount or increasing taxes on a smaller group making more than a million and go up to 39.6%. what is more likely to happen? >> it's more likely to be the former than the latter. i must tell you jennifer, i don't much care, you have to get that revenue target. the president said 1.6 trillion. you probably end up compromising at 1.2 trillio

asronaldreagangotput up against jimmy carter, president obama would be unemployed right now. what do i think he wants to do? i think he wants to pursue his ideology. i don't think it's about economy. he told us what his ideology is. he told us, you didn't do that. i'm in the middle of silicon valley. we did that. we invented things. we changed the world. the way you and i are talking to each other coast to coast, we did that. it wasn't the government because they put in sidewalks and put stripes on the roads. but he believes that people -- that entrepreneurs and businesses don't do stuff. he believes the large, collective central organization, the government, is what does stuff. >> how do we get the free market back, t.j.? how do we get this whole great american economic country of ours back on the free market path? that's what i need to know. >> let me give you the bad answer. i think it's probably an accurate answer. we've had 12 years of economic mismanagement. this is not an obama/democrat problem. this is a bush/republican/obama/democrat problem. 12 years of bad economic managemen

bernie sanders addressed very effectively. it was interesting hequotedronaldreaganonthe floor yesterday to point out social security has nothing to do with the deficit or balancing budgets, payroll tax that employers and employees pay into the trust fund that finances that and it should not even be discussed in these negotiations. but furthermore, this whole election, this whole national election was a referendum on the republic republicans' ideas expressed so well by mitt romney by the way yesterday afternoon when he talked about with such contempt for people who might need college loans, or health care, god forbid. and, you know, this election showed americans are completely opposed to the proposed reforms by the republicans on medicare and social security. they don't want entitlements changed or touched. and they want to see the top 2% pay some taxes. like they did in the clinton era. so if their elected representatives come in and within a week they're talking about changing entitlements and not raising taxes on the very rich, it's not just liberals who will be disappointe

-- you canthankronaldreaganandmargaret thatcher for doing it. host: this morning, jodie writes in on twitter, the b.p. disaster was made by bip it. there were safety regulars that were ignored. they know what they were doing before it blew up. we'll go to chad now from farmington, new mexico on the republican line. chad, thanks for calling. caller: yeah, thanks for having me. love what you guys have going on. sorry to say but i am a republican. i just had a question, since they already gave you the projected numbers for what they plan on spending everything on, does that show that they just don't plan on giving anybody, any people that were actually affected any money at all? host: what do you mean by that? caller: like, since they already gave the projected numbers of how much money they're spending on each individual group that they gave money to, do they plan on those groups giving the money to the people that actually were affected by it? host: i'll point you back to the "new york times" graphic on this. b.p. has set aside $42 billion to cover the cost related to the spill.

of course was a economic adviser topresidentronaldreagan, andthen has commented on these issues and read about these issues and donald is the director of the urban brookings tax policy center and former acting director of the congressional budget office as well. so we have three experts to talk about these issues and walk us through this minefield of tax policy and see where there might be common ground where the conversations of the white house could be ending up. peter, let me start with you. and the basic question about whether or not tax revenue has to be a part of this part of the conversation to begin with and whether the two sides were there is more common ground than they think. >> first obviously i think the tax revenue has to be part of the solution here both because the underlying budget but also because the election that was just held and the desire and the administration to maintain that additional revenue that they ran on and they won. on the substance though the point that i would make this would ever comes out of this fiscal cliff frankly i am now going to step out of the

george bush was for september 11 orthatronaldreaganwaswith the blowing up of the u.s. marine in beirut. >> brian: was there conflict -- put it this way, let's compare what george bush did, the administration knew and what we found out on 9-11 compared to what we fine out in 9-11, 2012. within 24 hours we knew who did it. within a week or so we found out we were mobilizing against it. no one was in conflict about who did the crime. no one said this was an internal attack, the towers fell down by themselves or an outrageous protest about our middle east policy. there was a movement together to get answers together where you had a movement that was totally fractured and a president who wouldn't answer any questions before the campaign. >> eric: let's take a couple months back, this was september 10, september 9, 8. remember we were talking president obama campaigning, instead of staying in the oval office getting intel briefings. remember, he houston, texas been to an intel briefing in months. everyone said don't worry action he'll get it on air force one or wherever he is. no.

, former economic advisor topresidentronaldreaganwithme today. art, good morning to you and welcome back. >> how are you, bill? bill: doing fine. thank you for your time. i look at some issues share with producers today. you say this is really serious and you underscore that. everybody considers it serious. you worked at the white house. you were in on these meetings. is this a forum for negotiation or is this -- what happens? >> it is a little talking to. they will both come in with their sides, their positions. there will be some sort of testing of the waters. we will see how responses are afterwards. we'll see aggressive play. then you will see which side starts giving in. we'll be following that in the next couple weeks. but obama has made it very clear, he believes he has a mandate but he really doesn't. he only got barely over 50% of the vote. reagan got 59% of the vote in his second term. the nixon won everything except massachusetts. so this is by no means a mandate. republicans still control the house. bill: let me be a little more specific on my question. are these negotia

become synonymous with scandal. richard nixon's secondterm.ronaldreagan's secondterm. my heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. >> the iran contra affair. bill clinton. >> i did not have sexual relations with that woman. impeached after the lewinsky mess. . that's trouble for roughly 100% of reelected presidents since 1972. enough to give you second thoughts about that second term. so, is there anything the obama team can do to prevent this? now, as bill clinton might say -- >> it depends upon what the meaning of the word is. >> the fact is, if there is going to be a second term scandal, it's seeds were probably sewn in the first term. the watergate break in, nixon's first term -- >> if the obama team was going to mess up, history suggests they already did. maybe it's something that has made headlines already, but maybe not, the lewinsky scandal didn't surface in 1998, maybe the obama administration will make it's own history and avoid a second term scandal. if not, disney world will seem very appealing. >> in the pres

, stagflation. in 1980, a very, very different president gotelected.ronaldreaganlikebarack obama inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. instead of jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending and the debt, he restrained the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the hounds of regulators, by the way, when i think of regulators, i can't help thinking of mr. burns saying "release the hounds!" [laughter] >> instead of releasing the hounds of regulators on small businesses and entrepreneurs, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary bursts of economic productivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth year of reagan's presidency was 1984, the same as the fourth year of obama's presidency. anyone know what g.d.p. growth was in 1984, 7.2%. our ideas work. their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs. if you want the 23 million people struggling to find work to get jobs, the answer is simple. you need growth and to get growth, you got to reduce and simplify the tax bu

Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)